OpenText ALM / Quality Center Reviews

• Ability to link a test case to a defect which increases traceability
• Ability to log a defect and link similar defects to that one defect. Great for not logging repetitive defects
• The content of the test case parameters (Actual, Expected Results etc) are pulled on the defect which nullifies retyping
• Ability to manage more than one project site at a go
• Reporting structure can be done using a self generated graph. Makes reports look professional even if the user is not completely clued up on ways to report.

1. When I started testing we used to test from SharePoint. This was good for the time being but it lacked a lot in terms of design and the priority of defects was not up to standard. There was no sight of show-stoppers and nobody would know of them unless it is communicated with the relevant people. As opposed to Quality Center where it is highlighted in a form of “level of severity” by putting a scale of low, medium and high
2. In Quality Center one is able to attach a screen print as proof of testing.

• GUI colours not that great
• On the defect site, when one adds a comment, anybody who has access to the same defect can change the initial comment. It would be great if the defect comments would not be editable.

I've never done a deployment.

Our organisation did not have any issues with the stability of this tool.

We were able to have a lot of users logged in at the same time with no lag time or any scalability related issues.

You should invest in Quality Center if you are looking for the following :

• High visibility of project progress
• If you cannot afford automation. or are not completely convinced but want to speed up their testing efforts, you can look into getting a Quality Center/ALM plug-in called Sprinter. A very good testing tool that is worth trying out.
• If you want a quick and smooth transition from manual testing into automation. Its smooth because HP holds your hand until your team is able to execute QTP independently. They are also available to see you through any technically difficulties.

We've primarily used most of the solution. Our requirements included test cases and defect handling in the past. We are using it for regression testing and maintenance of test cases to do regression testing when we are upgrading the system.

The solution acts as a repository of all of our test cases, which is very useful. We don't normally check the history as the environment has changed since the last time we ran a test. We know that we've executed the test and therefore don't need to repeat it. We understand what kinds of issues have occurred for future reference. 

It is stable and reliable.

The solution can scale.

Between versions 12 or 13 and the upgrade to 15, it took a very long time. We had a lot of difficulties with support and didn't understand why we had so many upgrade issues. 

We operate in Sweden, and there are not so many Swedish people that know the product. 

It might be end of life in some ways. 

The pricing can be a bit expensive. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

The solution is stable and reliable. We haven't had any issues aside from the upgrade problems we've run into. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have not had a problem adding users to help perform testing. In that sense, it is scalable. We haven't done too much development around test cases, however.

Right now, we have 20 to 25 people using the solution. Years ago, 30 or 40 people were using it. We've actually lowered usage. 

Support wasn't too helpful when we had to do an upgrade. The website is complex, and it's difficult to get answers. You can look online, and that ends up being more efficient than actually trying to find answers is Micros Focus. 

We had issues finding support.

Neutral

It's not a big deal to upgrade the version we have. We've had issues in the past, however. We've had problems with user handling and would like to incorporate it with Windows Director or SSO functionality. That's available in later versions, and we haven't upgraded to that yet.

We started with an empty ALM originally and filled it with content. It's been a long, historic journey from implementation to upgrades. 

I am not aware of the exact pricing of the solution. Many years ago, it was quite expensive, and my understanding is it is still not a low price. There are free tools on the market now as well, and therefore the price may be an issue. 

We are an end-user.

I might be using version 15 at this time. We've done a test installation of version 17.

When we started the test automization, it was not like today. It's gotten better over time. Now, it's much easier to automate testing. While I could recommend the solution, it's not necessarily state-of-the-art, however. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. Although it is not state-of-the-art, it is still a good tool. 

We have it deployed in our Data Center and it integrates with it to write a custom application on it. You have to use a sole technology, which is risky. It takes more advanced developers than someone who does JavaScript and makes web pages.

Micro Focus is selling two test management solutions, ALM/Quality Center and ALM Octane, TM, which are identical, except ones built on newer technology

The user interface is fully web-capable. It's a website, and it runs on a browser.

I like that it integrates with the Jira solutions. Similar to SmartBear TestComplete, and another solution, where they add test management into Jira. 

All of them use the same data model. You basically have a release, a cycle, and then you have requirements, you attach those to the cycle, then you have tests, and test sets made of tests. It's all the exact same thing. They got it right because everyone has copied it.

ALM is a dated application, and I am researching to see what other solutions are available.

We would like to upgrade to be more modern.

If you want to extend it, they use ActiveX which was put into a browser to go to the internet, but it never had security built into it. It is what Microsoft Office is based on.

It hasn't kept up, while others have and are adding new features and tools.

I would like to be able to use free keyword searches, where you're not just limited to SQL queries.

The software gets leapfrogged because you make a lot of investment in building something. You're selling it for five years, and meanwhile, all of the other tools are improving. Another vendor comes along to make the same thing that took you three years to build, he built it in six months.

It's all easier to make. It's always a cycle. I just look around to see where we are at in that cycle with test management software.

I would like to be able to search easier, not just do SQL queries, being able to do free keyword searches on the data. That's valuable.

I have been working with Micro Focus ALM Quality Center for a decade.

We are using the latest version.

The stability of this solution is good. We never experienced any issues with bugs, glitches, or any crashes.

We have not issues with the scalability of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center. It is a scalable product.

In a given day, we have 50 persistent users, then another day you may have 75 to 100 people with 30 users who are testers.

We have a contractor who supports us. The company's technical support, and it all goes through them. They are the middleman to us. They are on our site, and they run it.

I was not involved in the initial setup. It was set up by other people.

When I look back to four or five years ago, it would have been rated a 10, but now I think that it has 's probably fallen back to a six or a seven out of ten. I would rate Micros Focus ALM Quality a six out of ten.

I think if you look at the Gartner Magic Quadrant Reports, it pretty much indicates that as well.

Consolidate the testing process, centralised reporting, ease of analytics on metrics, easier bug management, consistent flow of requirements, flow of test cases, reusable test cases, testing history, bugs.

It has improved our organization as a result of several factors: All test assets are in one central location; Easier to track progress of QA activities; Easier reporting; Easier to assess quality

Requirements Management, Test Plan, Test Lab, Defect Management, Sprinter, Access control, Versioning and audit.

The project tracking is a bit complex. It takes some time to maneuver around it. It would also help if you could export some of the reports generated from it e.g. the Master Plan.

More than five years.

No

Can be used for really large organisations, multiple test projects

Customer Service:

Very responsive, though we haven't needed a lot of support.

Technical Support:

Technical Support has been helpful.

Initial setup was straightforward.

Vendor. The team was very qualified, both technically and from a user perspective.

We haven't yet computed the ROI.

Original cost was $158,000. Our day-to-day cost is difficult to compute, but it’s very low.

Yes, IBM - CLM.

It’s a great product for managing an end-to-end lifecycle process. It’s easy to use once you get the hang of it. One of the biggest pluses is having all your test assets in one place – requirements, models, test cases, test results, bugs, reporting, tracking (it’s unbeatable in my opinion).

It's also great that HP has now lowered the Saas cost for ALM - it was too high in my view.

The most valuable thing is the flexibility of the customized options. That makes it more powerful than any other tool. We can customize based on the project and on how we want to control the testing.

We used to have 10 different Excel spreadsheets for one project. Then, we switched everything: paper, Excel, etc. to be done in ALM. There is no outside noise and everything is done under one umbrella.

The canned report site could be improved. You can get your report but you have to do some stuff. If the project doesn't have a good, strong user, they don't get these reports. If we have more canned reports from the ALM site, this will solve some issues.

We have been using the ALM call center since the Mercury times, so the last 10 to 12 years.

It's very stable. In last 12 years, we've probably had two/three downtimes. But, nothing concerning their application.

Yeah, it is scalable. 10 years back, we started with five users. Now, we have 38 confirmed licenses. Over the years, we have grown from having just a few projects to having more than 25 large projects.

Our experience with the HPE support was not great. We have not used Micro Focus yet. Based on that, we switch to a consulting firm, Melillo, for the support because we were not getting direct answer from the HPE support, therefore we switched because of that. Now, we get a better service. Hopefully, with Micro Focus, it will be better.

If someone is doing the setup for the first time, it might be a little complex for them. However, if you are continuously upgrading, then it should be fine, because all of our upgrades we have done in-house. We never went to a company to get that bit done. If you plan it right, you can have the upgrade very smoothly done, so the user isn't affected.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: support and stability of the product. These are the two most important things to us. We want to have continuous improvement, because there are places to improve; we also don't want rapid changes, because they do affect the user, so that balance is important.

The most valuable features of ALM are in the new upgraded version of 12.53. We're able to more accurately document our test results, our actual versus our expected results, with the new screenshot functionality. That is the most useful part of the tool for me right now. Of course, we use it as our testing repository, and it's basically the way to show the work that we do as QA testers, and to have a historical view of those executions.

Because we can trend repeatable results, we can look at trends of things that are continuously working well, and things that continuously get broken within the software development process. So it helps us improve our testing quality.

Sprinter, I think, is a good part of this ALM tool, but it has some limitations for us. Based on the type of software we use - we have some web based applications and also some power built applications - not able to capture all the objects, or the way that we develop our software. We're not able to use it as much as we would like to. So Sprinter would be something I would like to see better integrated with the different types of technologies used by the software companies.

I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers, to make sure they understand how to use the tool. Do they really understand how they're using it? Why they're using it. So, for me, that would useful.

For us, so far, it's been pretty stable. Because we have such a ginormous amount of historical data, we've had a little bit of an issue with performance. We were working on copying and creating a new database for that because we have products that we use, FDA regulated products, and we can't get rid of those testing results. So we have to keep them for the life of the product.

So of all of the things that we've experienced, or had issues with, it would be the amount of data we're able to store, because we have to keep everything.

That would go to what I just mentioned above. We're looking at ways to improve being able to capture more results without impacting our products.

I haven't used tech support because we have a couple of different layers within the business unit. So I have people that I can go to, and then those people go to tech support. So it is utilized on a different level, just not by me.

When selecting a vendor to work with, the most important criteria are flexibility, availability, and scalability.

I would say it's a good tool. You have to invest the time into learning the different ins and outs of the tool, and become educated on it. I think it can scale as much as you allow it to, but you have to put the time into learning what it has to offer.

The Business Process Testing module and approach to testing in QC is its most valuable feature.

For manual test cases, we need to write test case each time and if any update or CR comes then we need to go to each test case and update, which is very time consuming. But, with BPT we can update it in less time as would otherwise take to update two or three business components. After a refresh, it will automatically update the whole test set, which is over 100 test cases.

I would like to see a bit of improvement in its look and feel.

We've used it for seven years.

There were issues with the deployment.

We had some issues with the stability.

We had some issues with the scalability.

8/10

8/10

Earlier I used Mantis, but it was not user friendly and had no functionality apart from defect tracking. But HP QC is defect tracking by default. Test Case Execution tracking and reporting functionality which will serve all purposes for testing processes.

The initial setup was not complex.

We used a vendor team with in-house machines for the implementation.

For testing processes and improvements, I would suggest you use this product. But, if you're looking at cost, then that might be a concern, but no doubt it is the best tool for testing.

REST API. It lets me do what I need to do, instead of what HPE Quality Center does on its own.

By using the REST API, I have automated QA Reporting, and integrated QA information into the development build process.

Its performance is horrible, and it's unnecessarily complex, which means the local site administrators set it up to be used in very unproductive ways.

10 years (including earlier versions).

Yes. While most of it is introduced by our poor local setup, that is a direct outcome of my complaint mentioned in the need for improvement.

Yes, but again this mostly do with how we implemented it locally. Again, it is an outcome of the issue that the local site administrators set it up to be used in very unproductive ways.

On the lower end.

I have a lot of trouble getting to useful information – on the HP site, and with their technical support. Though I’m far removed from interacting with HP support directly now (at one point I was on the local support team for HPE QC, but now I’m just a user within my company).

Yes – HPE QC is much better than anything else I have seen.

Extremely complex, and unnecessarily so. Main reason was HPE QC doesn’t do a good job of explaining how you can keep it simple and still get the same job done. The tool is ready to do a great job, its how it gets implemented that is the real problem.

I understand that it’s still extremely expensive.

Yes – PVCS Tracker, Compuware’s Track Record, SmartBear, and JIRA. Some groups use JIRA for defect management (in addition to its development usage), but local JIRA usage is just as messed up in its setup that it just recreated the problems which we have with HPE QC instead of solving them.

Same advice as for any Test Resources Management product: KISS – "Keep it simple, stupid."